Nabil and Inzaman

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Nabil (the applicant husband) sought to review consent orders made on 3 August 2006 concerning contact with his young son, effectively applying for an extension of time to set aside those orders. The respondent wife opposed this application. The parties had separated before the child's birth, and the father had minimal contact with the child for the first four years of his life.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the husband an extension of time to apply to set aside the consent orders. This required the court to consider the adequacy of the explanation for the significant delay in bringing the review application and whether, in the best interests of the child, the existing consent orders should be reopened.

Steele J dismissed the husband's application for an extension of time. The court found that there was virtually no adequate explanation for the delay, noting that the husband's affidavit suggested he was not ready to commit to being a serious part of the child's life at the time the consent orders were made and had not changed his mind until recently. The judge applied the principle that parties who enter into consent orders, particularly mature and educated individuals who have received legal advice, should be bound by them unless there is a change of circumstances sufficient to justify reopening the matter in the child's best interests. The court found no such change of circumstances had occurred. The wife's application for costs was also dismissed.